I suppose she doesn't know that politicians vote based on the views of their constituency? Perhaps she should hire private detectives to follow every
married man in the districts who support those politicians who don't vote the way she wants..

And it is blackmail .... its an effort to coerce future votes of other politicians; "People didn't vote the way I said so I will prove to the world
some are having an affair, so next time watch out, it could be you being exposed next" is the end result and it should be very illegal.

I want politicians voting the way their constituency wants them to vote not voting issues to keep from getting on the front page.

I suppose she doesn't know that politicians vote based on the views of their constituency? Perhaps she should hire private detectives to follow every
married man in the districts who support those politicians who don't vote the way she wants..

And it is blackmail .... its an effort to coerce future votes of other politicians; "People didn't vote the way I said so I will prove to the world
some are having an affair, so next time watch out, it could be you being exposed next" is the end result and it should be very illegal.

I want politicians voting the way their constituency wants them to vote not voting issues to keep from getting on the front page.

Well maybe people should start treating her fairly and stop criticising her being gay.

I wouldn't blackmail people but screw them. Total hypocrites.

How are people not getting this? I'm guessing the pros attacking her in this thread also think be gay is unatural.

It`s only blackmail if they are ashamed of what they are doing or think what they are doing is immoral or wrong.
if she threatened to out them on who donated the most time and money to charity would that be blackmail?

it doesn`t make sense that they support laws that make their own actions criminal.I though one of the perks of being a politician is that you pass or
support laws that make your criminal actions legal.

This really isnt blackmail, its totally relevant and even the right thing to do.

You wanna bang on about about the sanctity of the family unit and the bond between a married man and woman for the purpose of denying other people any
form of happiness then make damn sure you practice what you preach!!!!

If you wanna deny people anything on the grounds of a percieved superior morality make sure you actually have it.

Lets put this in perspective.
If a politician was calling for stricter gun control and it turns out he keeps a massive arsenal in his basement do you think people should be made
aware?
Or if a democrat is criticising a republican for taking money from big business and he was doing the same should people be informed?

If this was a discussion about a tax break or healthcare etc etc and she made the threat to expose infidelities or gay liaisons then yes it would be
blackmail.
In the context of the OP if she threatened to expose their financial dealings or previous criminal past or anything other than something family values
orientated then yes it would be blackmail.
However neither of the above examples count and in this case the threat is 100% on topic!!!
Voters who elected these gay marriage deniers most likely did so on the grounds of their strong family values and christian morals so if they have
none and basically got elected on lies then they should 100% be exposed.

In fact I dont even know why she made the threat, she should have just exposed them already

wow dirty pool man dirty pool she needs to remember that those people are not just going against gay marriage
because the people want them to and the people voted them in .
They are supposed to do what the voters want.
And then to tell on your co-workers just becuse they wont do what you want thats pre school stuff........im telling im telling .
Man what a lesbian.

yeah i get your point on that but the politicain is supposed to vote the way the people want him to not what he wants and a majority of his people i
guess are againstt gay marriage .it would all be solved if there was a seperation of church and state but there isnt in fact when u get married you
get tax cuts and other benefits from the government .
If the government didnt do that i doubt so many would want to be married in the traditional sense .
They would have their ceromony thing in whatever fashion they wanted and striaght people have their ceromony how ever they wanted but you bring tax
cuts and health benifits into it every one wants to be married on paper.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.